It?s Much More Than the Birth
Certificate, Mr. Trump!

WHAT IS THE TRUE MEANING OF ?NATURAL BORN CITIZEN??

March 31, 2011

What did the Framers mean by the
term "natural born Citizen?"

Mr. Donald TrumpTrump Organization725 Fifth
AvenueNew York, NY? 10022

Dear Mr. Trump,

Thank you for taking up the
Barack Obama issue.? You are the only person who has questioned publicly, ?Why
is the king wearing no clothes?!?? All the people who one would have presumed
and expected to take the lead have apparently refused to do so for reasons of
political expediency, fear of being called a racist, just going along with the
Party line, or because of their own complicity.? They are all cowards and
traitors to this country!

Let me explain.? You have
the birth certificate issue correct, but there is so much more to this story,
Mr. Trump.? Even if Obama had been born in this country (which has never
been proved or even vetted), that would not in and of itself qualify him to
meet the Constitution?s requirement of being a natural born Ccitizen, a
child born of two American citizens and born in this country.? One must be of
the blood and of the soil.? Obama had a father who was subject to the British
Crown and so was Obama at his birth.? He has openly acknowledged being born a
British citizen.? So, the birth certificate issue is important, but Obama?s
dual-citizenship and divided allegiance are even more
important.

As one who was born and
raised in New York state, I want to be as blunt as maybe only we New Yorkers can
be:? Barack Hussein Obama is a radical socialist who, with the aiding and
abetting of the Democratic Party and most likely the Republican Party, and
judges from the lower levels right up to the Supreme Court, and with the
complicit mainstream media providing cover, is neither qualified nor eligible to
serve as President of the United States.? He is a usurper!? How did he get
there?? Who funded him?? Is George Soros behind it?? Has there been a conspiracy
and fraud committed upon America the likes of which we have never before seen in
this country?? To see all the evidence that has been gathered so far (Obama?s
Kenyan father, his Connecticut SSAN, phony ?BC?, questionable Selective Service
Registration, et al), and to be deprived at every legitimate quarter (Congress,
the Courts, the media, etc.) for evidence substantiating who Obama really is,
one would more than likely have to say, ?America has been
deceived.?

We Americans have been
punked, lied to, marginalized and put in prison (LTC Lakin, LCDR Fitzpatrick) to
protect the usurper squatting in our White House.? Why has Obama been propped up
and protected so vociferously?? Is the answer that our Constitution, our
capitalist, free-market system was overthrown in the 2008 election so that
radical socialists could effect their warped ideas of redistribution, statism,
and godless philosophies on an America they hate?? I do not think one needs to
look much further for the truth than that, only deeper.

There have been millions of
us protesting and trying to get our Congressmen, the media, and the courts to
vet Obama, all to no avail.? And now comes Donald Trump who obviously suffers no
fools and starts asking questions.? And because you are a celebrity and have
wealth and status, you are being listened to.? What us regular Americans have
been unable to do for 2-1/2 years, you are starting to do by blowing the lid off
the silence.? I say ?starting? because I realize you have just waded into the
morass and there is so much more to this story, as you are probably already
discovering.

In short, Mr. Trump, you
have looked at the buck-naked king and asked the obvious question.? I have no
doubt that you have the temerity to dig deeper, the strength of character and
personality to take on Obama?s propaganda machine, and the resolve to see this
issue blown wide open.? You will surely be one for the history books, Mr. Trump,
because out of more than 300 million Americans, you are the ONLY person who has
taken on Barack Hussein Obama, the Great Pretender, the Marxist who hates
America.? Now let?s finish the job and save our Constitution, our American way
of life and free-market system, and out the usurper and all those in the Obama
conspiracy and clean house!? America is behind you!? Just ask for whatever
information you want and I will?gladly help facilitate getting it to you.? My
phone number is ????..and email is ????...

Donald Trump on Geraldo Rivera, Obama birth certificate,

There Is a Chance that He Wasn?t Born in this?Country

Donald Trump on Geraldo Rivera, Obama birth certificate, There Is a Chance that He Wasn?t Born in this Country

?Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records???Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

Donald Trump was interviewed by Geraldo Rivera.

Geraldo: ?There is something very Strange going on. He spent a lot of money to keep this out of print. There?s something very very strange going on. A lot of legal fees. Why can?t he produce a birth certificate??

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Video: Donald Trump trumps Fox News on Obama's eligibility. This is getting better by the day. The Fox News crew is in complete damage control mode. They have covered for Obama on his eligibility for...

Friday, March 25, 2011

Video: Boy have the tables turned at the Fox News Channel. Usually they gang up on Birthers and attack and ridicule them. Tonight's Hannity show on Fox News Sean Hannity brought up the issue in two different...

Videos: This is some funny stuff. I think the cat --or should I say Trump-- got O'Reilly's tongue!? Bill usually touts the Obama newspaper birth announcements and the short-form COLB as undeniable proof...

Obama, As Red as It?Gets

Isn?t it about time that the mainstream media and all
others begin to examine the record and conclude that a Communist holds the reins
of power in the White House?

Since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, it is often
believed that Communism died with it. Not so, Communism is alive and well in
China, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela.From
the days of Harry Truman who discovered that Franklin Roosevelt had given the
Soviets Eastern Europe at the WWII Yalta Conference, American presidents have
steadfastly done what they believed was required to keep Communism ?contained.?;
some more successfully than others.

The Communist Manifesto is well
worth reading. Among its planks is the abolition of private property and a
government that owns or controls?much of the?U.S. landmass is antithetical to
this keystone of capitalism.

The Manifesto calls for ?a heavy progressive or
graduated income tax.? It calls for the centralization of credit in the hands of
the state. We have a ?Federal Reserve? that is a national
bank.

It calls for ?centralization of the means of
communications and transportation.? We have a Federal Communications Commission.
There?s more and you can read about it here.

America has never had a Communist President until
now.

While others have written how obvious it is that Obama
is a ?Socialist?, I think this is a matter of caution in a society that has not
seriously used the word ?Communist? since the 1950s when entities like the House
Un-American Activities Committee actively investigated and exposed how many
existed in the government, the unions, and Hollywood.

It?s not like Barack Hussein Obama has come out and
said, ?Yes, I?m a Communist?, but you don?t have to have a PhD in Political
Science to connect the dots. The process is made murky by the way Obama has
deliberately covered his tracks wherever he could, while dropping broad
hints.

Obama is the classic ?red diaper? baby, the result of a
union between his mother, Stanley Dunham and Barack Obama Sr., memorialized in
?Dreams of My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.? However, Jerome Corsi,
the author of ?Obama Nation? notes that ?we are told by Obama outright?that much
of the autobiography is not factually true, at least not as written.? Indeed,
much of what Obama has had to write or say of his life is fiction of one sort or
another.

His father abandoned his mother, returning to Africa ?to
live the life of a chronic alcoholic.? He was also ?a man of the left.? Obama?s
mother remarried and took him off to Indonesia, but other than developing a
fondness of Islam, not much is known of that period. A second divorce put Obama
in the care of his grandparents in Hawaii and it was there where his most
formative development occurred.

In his excellent book, ?Dupes?, historian Dr. Paul
Kengor traces the role of the former Soviet Union and the Communist Party USA
(CPUSA) as it developed both spies and ?fellow travelers? devoted to turning the
U.S. toward Communism.

Towards its end the book traces the most important
influences in the life of President Obama. The conclusion that he is a Communist
is unavoidable.

Obama?s grandparents were devoted to socialism, raising
their daughter in schools known for it, even attending a church that reflected
it. They were close friends with Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the CPUSA and
an Afro-American. Dr. Kengor noted that, during the 1970s, the period of Obama?s
adolescence, ?His impact is profound because he mentored a young man who made it
all the way to the White House.?

Among the hints Obama drops in ?Dreams of My Father? was
a reference to his college years ?hanging out with Marxist professors?,
attending ?socialist conferences?, and discussing ?neocolonialism.? Dr. Kengor
quotes Dr. John Drew, a contemporary of Obama at Occidental College for whom
Obama was ?as a fellow Marxist? and said of the President, ?Obama was already an
ardent Marxist when I met (him) in the fall of 1980.?

After graduating from Columbia University, long a hotbed
of a Leftist faculty and students indoctrinated with a liberal political
philosophy, and later Harvard Law School, Obama moved to Chicago where he became
close friends with former far-Left Weatherman terrorists of the 1960s, Bill
Ayers and his wife Benardine Dohrn. His first venture into politics took place
in a fund-raiser in their home. Obama attended a Black Liberation church in
Chicago led by Rev. Jeremiah Wright who rarely had a good word for America.
Ayers calls himself ?a communist with a small ?c?.?

Among those chosen to be in his administration was Van
Jones, ?an avowed communist? named as Obama?s ?green jobs czar.? When exposed,
he resigned. Another figure of the far Left was Jeff Jones whose consulting
firm, the Apollo Alliance, ?helped write President Obama?s budget-bursting $800
billion ?stimulus? bill passed by Congress shortly into the Obama
presidency.?

For those still in denial, consider an article by
Stanislav Mishin that appeared in Pravda, the Russian newspaper that was
formerly one of the main organs of the Soviet Union. ?It must be said that like
the breaking of a great dam, the American descent into Marxism is happening with
breathtaking speed, against the backdrop of a passive, hapless sheep?, much of
which he attributed to ?the election of Barack Obama.?

That was written before the spontaneous explosion of the
quintessentially American Tea Party movement. Since then we have seen the
dramatic reversal of power in Congress that occurred as the result of the
November 2010 elections.

The harm and damage done by our first Communist
President will take years to repair, but Americans have wakened
to

? the socialist menace of the nation?s public sector
unions,

? the centralization of education in the federal
government,

? the threat of the Environmental Protection Agency?s
assertion of control over America?s energy sector,

? the refusal of the Interior Department to grant
drilling permits,

? the devaluation of the U.S. dollar by the Federal
Reserve,

? and the incremental efforts of an anti-American
government to undermine defense, national security, our economy, and our
worldwide reputation as a defender of freedom.

Winston Churchill, the former British Prime Minister who
led that nation through World War II and coined the term ?Iron Curtain?, said of
Communism, ?it is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of
misery.?

We Are Not Birthers?

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT OBAMA?S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

(Mar. 22, 2011) ? Despite
what Bill O?Reilly, Chris Matthews and other uninformed media personnel think,
it?s not about Obama?s Birth certificate, nor is it about where he was born. It
is about the fact that Obama?s father was a Kenyan National and never a US
citizen.? This fact alone makes Obama a British subject or at best gives him
dual citizenship and because of this makes Obama unconstitutional to be
President.

Now those who question this
openly are labeled birthers, racist, bigots, right wingers or are thrown in jail
for some bogus charge. Theresa Cao and? Lt. Col. Terry Lakin are just a just a couple of people who have questioned Obama and
his eligibility. These people are no more guilty of commenting a crime than
anyone of us, they have just questioned the Usurper in
Chief.

Now where is Congress in all
of this? Is Congress afraid of Obama? Are the Courts afraid of him? Have there
been death threats made against members of Congress. Has Obama?s goons made them
an offer they couldn?t refuse? Did they wake up one morning with the head of a
horse next to them in bed? What is the going price these days for selling out
your country?

When the truth comes out
about Obama and how he usurped America, will Congress make all he has done null
and void or will it be Business as Usual?

Obama had no experience
before and the only experience he has now is seeing how many vacations he can
take on the backs of taxpayers and doing so while he tells the American People
they need to tighten their belts.

We are not Birthers?we are
Patriots. We have fought in wars, that kids today know nothing about. We proudly
display the American flag on our homes, our pick-up trucks and our construction
sights. We aren?t afraid of work and we don?t want the government to take care
of us. We do want the government to uphold their oath they swore to the
Constitution. This includes every member of Congress. Just remember, you were
voted into office and you can be voted out. You also need to remember that you
work for Us and so far we are not pleased.

? 2011, The Post
& Email. All rights reserved
internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright
restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the
left margin.

. the socialist menace of the nation?s public sector
unions,. the centralization of education in the federal government,. the
threat of the Environmental Protection Agency?s assertion of control over
America?s energy sector,. the refusal of the Interior Department to grant
drilling permits,. the devaluation of the U.S. dollar by the Federal
Reserve,. and the incremental efforts of an anti-American government to
undermine defense, national security, our economy, and our worldwide reputation
as a defender of freedom.

Isn?t it about time that the mainstream media and all
others begin to examine the record and conclude that a

Communist holds the reins of power in the White House? ?
America has never had a Communist President until now.

While others have written how obvious it is that Obama
is a ?Socialist?, I think this is a matter of caution in a society that has not
seriously used the word ?Communist? since the 1950s when entities like the House
Un-American Activities Committee actively investigated and exposed how many
existed in the government, the unions, and Hollywood.

It?s not like Barack Hussein Obama has come out and
said, ?Yes, I?m a Communist?, but you don?t have to have a PhD in Political
Science to connect the dots. The process is made murky by the way Obama has
deliberately covered his tracks wherever he could, while dropping broad hints.
?

The harm and damage done by our first Communist
President will take years to repair, but Americans have wakened
to:

Has any modern political figure ever squandered
political goodwill in the manner of Obama?trading near messianic devotion from a
hundred million for not even a cup of proverbial porridge in return? His
political pratfalls occur only as often as he makes decisions. But even the most
hardened Obama backers had to shudder and roll their eyes this week when Barack
fixated on college basketball ?brackets? instead of ongoing tragedy, chaos and
the loss of tens of thousands. It became transparent?in a way in which only
disasters bring clarity?that Obama is a boy amongst men, only haphazardly
observing history?s progress the way a house cat mindlessly follows a fluttering
object. ?

Recent tragedies and conflicts utterly prove Obama?s
wholesale lack of principle. The import is he is wholly unpredictable, and will
only be directed by circumstance and self-advancement. If we account for his
indifference to history, democracy, capitalism, and Christianity?then
shoehorn-in issues of mental competency, it adds up to perhaps the worst
presidency in US history. We might only be one more simple crisis away from a
total leadership implosion, given how Barack seems to lead less and less with
each mounting disaster. In midst of one of history?s strongest earthquakes, an
associated nuclear disaster, and political meltdown in Libya and across the
Middle East, Obama reveals childish instincts to run and hide. He has all the
enthusiasm of a hemophiliac at a knife-throwers convention. So we need to hit
the reset button with 2 years left. ?

Barack is helping promote the biggest con job in
socialist history. He sells the belief leftists access a body of wisdom
unparalleled in human history, allowing stunningly correct decisions,
light-years ahead of anyone else. We can call this the ?One Right Solution?
approach to leadership; an antidote to any problem. This idea derives from the
notion good government is based upon humanistic roots that then cast up a Great
Socialist to lead the people towards enlightenment. Consider these human
super-dynamos who appeared to lead a nation helpless of dolts: Lenin, Mao,
Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, etc. But the real track-record of socialism is almost
as convincing as that of alchemy.

From where does such an outlandish idea come, that
leftism has answers to life?s problems? By virtue of the sudden triumph of
radical humanism against slowly developed traditions?often with roots in
revealed religion. We can briefly note socialism represents a qualitative
simplification of every important institution in the Western constitutional
canon. Republicanism becomes vulgar democracy before its pushed into tyranny.
Capitalism is crushed into socialism. Military strength is downsized into
appeasement. The Rule of Law is reduced to the notion government can do no
wrong. Related, religion is outlawed or belittled into subservience, and State
itself then becomes a god. Rights of Free Speech, and other civil liberties and
criminal rights therefore become enfolded into the
state.

The only thing holding the Democratic coalition
together is the shared moniker of ?Democrat.?

The Obama administration can feel the rumblings and hear
the faults begin to crack. As a result, the president and members of his
administration are battening down the hatches, abandoning all pretense of
governing, and doing what they think the do best;
campaigning.

Barack Obama?s campaign in 2008 was considered
magnificent. He ousted Hillary Clinton from her dominance over the nomination
fight, created a persona no one could match, and defeated the entire Republican
brand in the form of John McCain and a huge swath of Republican lawmakers.
Following his victory, it was Obama who bragged that Democrats need not worry
about making unpopular votes in Congress. When questioned about the 1994
landslide against the Democrats giving the House and Senate to the GOP, Obama
scoffed. Then Rep. Marion Berry D-Arkansas recalled; ??They just kept telling us
how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in
one group, said, ?Well, the big difference here and in ?94 was you?ve got me.?
We?re going to see how much difference that makes now.? Obama and his entourage
believed The Won would have coattails that spread like FDR. He believed he was
charmed and could dispense that popularity like confetti upon the endangered
few. The Democratic Party-aligned mainstream media also promulgated this idea.
Obama?s campaigning skills were so powerful, he could just fly into a district
or state and the people would flock to his side.

2010 proved just how wrong he really was. In fact,
candidates fled before he arrived. Tim Kaine, Democratic National Committee
chair pleaded with Democrats nationwide to embrace Obama, Obamanomics,
Obamacare, and all things Obama-esque. This would be a winning combination,
Kaine argued.

The ones who were in deep navy blue districts or states
survived. Those who were in districts that even tinged purple, lost. Or, managed
to avoid appearing even slightly in favor of all things Obama. Joe Manchin in
West Virginia is a good example. He only won by shooting a big example of
Democratic legislative thuggishness in the form of a bill.

Obama is now the brand. Many Democrats, those who still
embrace the label and are reasonable, are scared to death. Obamanomics has
failed miserably. The economy is sputtering. Job growth is anemic. Inflation is
rearing its ugly head for the first time in decades. We are deeply addicted to
spending, spending everyone realizes is poisonous. The deficits and debt weigh
heavy on the general public and their attitudes toward their government.
Overseas, we are viewed with suspicion, or jocularity, or outright contempt. For
a president who promised peace, we are still embroiled in two occupations that
look like wars and we are now saber-rattling in the Mediterranean Sea off the
coast of Libya.

This is a president watching as his empty promises and
failed policies drain the vigor from his
Party.

The Ramifications of an Illegitimate
President

??

?

WHAT WILL BE THE FALLOUT?

by David LaRocque

?

Is every member of the U.S. House
and Senate guilty of treason for failing to expose Obama's
fraud?

(Mar. 18, 2011) ? The Hawaii
Petition letter is a definitive
and comprehensive statement of the constitutional concerns we all share with
respect to the actions of the State of Hawaii and its officials in the matter of
the apparently fraudulent 2008 U.S. presidential election.

According to Chief Justice
Marshall in Marbury v. Madison: ?The
government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of
laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation
if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal
right.?

The people of this great
nation have unarguably been denied a remedy in the laws to the denial of one of
the most fundamental of our constitutionally-vested legal rights ? the right to
have legally-admissible verification that the person elected to serve in the
office of president is, in fact, eligible to serve in that office under the
terms of the United States Constitution.

Among the related subsidiary
concerns raised by this matter at the federal level are the
following:

1. An increasingly
persuasive body of evidence has been accumulated indicating that the putative
President of the United States has a history of membership in, and association
with, entities known to be front organizations for the Communist Party of the
USA, as well long and frequent association with individuals known to be past or
present members of radical terrorist organizations which are dedicated to the
overthrow of the American constitutional republic form of government.
Furthermore, a number of these individuals have been appointed by this putative
president to high-level positions in the government of the United States; while
certain passages in his autobiography Dreams from My Father,
together with numerous public statements made by Mr. Obama, indicate clearly his
strong affinity to a Marxist political philosophy which is incompatible with the
American system of government.

2. The putative president of
the United States has admitted to a history of the use of illegal drugs.
Circumstantial evidence exists indicating that this drug use continued to a time
much later than previously admitted.

3. Documented evidence of
long-standing Social Security fraud by Barack Obama, involving the use of a
false Social Security number, provides overwhelming indications of felonious
illegal activities on the part of Barack Obama. These activities may, in the
best case, represent attempts to cover up a lack of documentation of U.S.
citizenship. In the worst case, they could represent the tip of an iceberg of
massive and serious financial fraud, as well as participation in fraudulent
political candidacies and fraudulent oaths in connection with service in the
Senate of the State of Illinois as well as the United States
Senate.

Any one of these concerns,
if raised in connection with a background investigation for a standard security
clearance for access to classified information, would be disqualifying. Taken in
combination, it is inconceivable that a person with these issues in his
background, and one who objects vigorously to any attempt to seek additional
information or to gain access to original documentation about his origins and
background, could be allowed to serve in the highest office in the United States
government.

4. The status of military
operations conducted without proper legal authority should be a matter of the
most serious concern at the highest levels, and in all branches, of the United
States Government.

5. The status of high level
appointments, including appointments to the United States Supreme Court, by an
ineligible president, are of the most serious and urgent
concern.

6. The fact that a decorated
U.S. military officer was
denied his constitutional rights to a fair trial and subjected to a kangaroo
court-martial in order to preserve the cover-up of the constitutional
ineligibility of the putative president of the United States is an alarming
testament to the apparent corruption which has infected the United States Armed
Services, and represents an outrageous affront to every person who has ever
served in the uniform of a U.S. military service. This cannot
stand.

The national security issues
raised by these concerns are monumental and of the most urgent
character.

Further delay, or continued
failure, by the United States Congress to address this matter constitutes
nothing less than the crime of treason by the entire United States
Congress.

? 2011, The Post &
Email. All rights reserved
internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright
restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the
left margin.

There is no ?President Obama?

BUT THERE ARE TRAITORS IN CONGRESS, THE COURTS, AND THE WHITE HOUSE

If Obama is a usurper, will we
ever see justice served and adequate punishment carried
out?

The Obama ?Presidency? is
nonexistent. The media refers to Barack Obama as ?President Obama.?? I have said
it many times in the past and will reiterate it now:

Barack Obama has never?been
the President of the United States of America.? Under the U.S. Constitution, one
has to be a ?natural born Citizen,?
which means born in the U.S., of parents, both of whom?are American?Citizens, in
order to become President of the United States.

Given the facts and
circumstances of Barack Obama?s birth, Obama had only one American citizen
parent. Obama?s father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a British citizen. There is some
talk that Obama may actually be the son of Malcolm X. Who really knows who
Barack Obama is and if that is his real name?? His entire past has been
purposely obfuscated.

Obama just fired his
?transparency Czar.? I suppose that he will be looking for an ?Obfuscation
czar.? After all, Obama paid his lawyers to help
him ?evade? the constitutional ?natural born Citizen? requirement. Indeed, U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas laughingly told the U.S. Congress that the
Supreme Court was also ?evading that issue.?
John Paul Jones,
American Revolutionary Naval Hero, once referred to England as a ?country of
illegitimate corruption.? Has the United States arrived at that same
juncture?

Obama is a criminal, a
radical Islamist supremacist. Two hundred and thirty four years after declaring
independence from Britain, a British-born citizen rules the U.S. This is the
second Brit to do so. The other was Chester?A. Arthur.
Arthur had his staff salute the British flag. Obama waved the Red
Chinese flag over the South Lawn of the
White House in 2009.

Obama has a very dark side.?
He is a quisling, a traitor to the United States of America. I am of the opinion
that he should be arrested and tried and if convicted, executed by firing squad
(See 18 USC, Part 1, Chapter 115, Sec. 2381).

As reported by the BBC,
Obama went to Kenya and while having owed allegiance to the United States,
campaigned for Raila
Odinga, a known enemy of the United States, giving Odinga aid and comfort. It
was Odinga who wanted to be President of Kenya. He ran against President
Mwai Kibaki, a Roman
Catholic. Kibaki was/is an ally of the U.S. Obama campaigned against Kibaki and
for Odinga. Obama has given a great deal of money to Odinga and has helped him
lead Kenya down a billabong (Obama is
?leading? the U.S. down the same billabong). Currently, the U.S. State
Department is downplaying Obama?s activities in Kenya and his having sent
taxpayer money there.
Odinga instituted Sharia law in Kenya and collaborated with the same Muslim
groups which bombed two U.S. embassies. Obama
interjected his support of these activities. By campaigning for Odinga, Obama
became?a traitor to the U.S.

It is important to note that
Hillary Clinton, an Obama cohort and accomplice?to fraud in the 2008
presidential?election here in the USA, is the current Secretary of State. The
U.S. is having mid-term elections in November. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is
making plans to run as Obama?s
Vice-President in 2012.

The adage ?O, what a tangled
web we weave when we first practice to deceive? is appropos here. Obama, Bill
and Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and many others in the same cabal have failed
to take said adage seriously. This writer is a co-charging party in an
International Criminal Court investigation of the Kenyan Election violence. I have submitted
numerous documents to the ICC regarding Obama?s activities.

Obama?s name will go down in
infamy in the history books. The names ?Benedict Arnold? and
?Barack Obama? are synonymous.? The terms ?traitor? and ?quisling? will have, as
an addition, the term ?obama.? ?You are an ?Obama?? will be heard to describe
one who has betrayed his duty to America.

Robert C. LaityFounding
PresidentSociety for the Preservation of Democracyand Human
Rights

????????

Editor?s Note: This letter
was sent to [email protected] on Sunday, August 29, 2010, and received the following
response:

Due to
the high volume of messages received at this address, the White House is unable
to process the email you just sent. To contact the White House, please
visit:

The same letter was sent to
Sheriff Joe Arpaio?s office on September 1, 2010, and received the following
response:

We have
received your e-mail.

Your
message will be routed to the appropriate person.? Someone will get back to you
as soon as possible.

All the
best,

Sheriff Joe Arpaio & the staff of the Maricopa County
Sheriff?s Office

? 2010, The Post &
Email. All rights reserved
internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright
restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the
left margin.

US Veteran Files Police Complaint ? Obama
Accused of Electoral Crimes

AND WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO ARE ALSO GUILTY?

Why does the mainstream press
insist on calling him "President Obama?"

(Mar. 17, 2011) ? Obama is a
faux ?President.?? Only bona-fide Presidents are covered by the provisions of
the Impeachment protocol.? I disagree that a ?sitting? POTUS must be impeached
first.? Some who may appear to be a ?sitting President? are NOT (Example:?
Chester Arthur).

ONLY? bona fides Presidents
can be impeached.

Obama can be immediately
arrested and face charges in the USDC District of DC, where the crime of
usurpation occurred. There is Prima Facie evidence that Obama has never BEEN
POTUS. His father was NOT an American. Obama has British Jus Sanguinis and
American Jus Sanguinis. Even if Obama was born in the Lincoln Bedroom (US Jus
Soli) Obama I NOT a Natural Born Citizen. A Natural-Born Citizen is ?one born in
a Country of Citizen ParentS?

Secondly, Obama is a traitor
and is precluded from holding ?Any office under the US?. It is the powers that
be that are misprisioners of Treason and Felony. ?We the People? MUST act to
correct this untenable situation lest our nation falls.

?`This, even if it means
MASS Impeachments of responsible Court and Legislative officials as
well.

?The President,Vice President and ALL civil officers of
the United States SHALL BE REMOVED from office on Impeachment for, and
conviction of Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors? Article
II, Sec.4 (US Const.)

Obama is, prima facie NOT a ?Sitting President.?? I
believe that it is ?Repugnant to the Constitution? that a ?Sitting President?
cannot be charged with crimes.

See Marbury v. Madison, USSCt,(1803)

I have filed formal charges against Obama. Many others
have done so.? Obama formally STANDS ACCUSED. Indeed, if an imposter ?Sitting
President? could NOT be charged with a Crime, how would he be brought to the Bar
of Justice?? Impeachment is a process that is reserved for bona-fides Civil
Officers and one that is controlled by the contemporaneous political milieu. It
is such a Milieu that allowed Hitler to gain power in
Germany.

Obama collaborators, such as Nancy Pelosi, who
misrepresented Obama?s qualifications to BE POTUS are still in the Congress and
Senate. There are two ways an Impeachment can go. One is a vote not to
Impeach,the other TO Impeach. While a fair and constitutional process when a
bona-fides POTUS is being Impeached, it is NOT constitutional when a faux POTUS
is allowed to proceed under it?s umbrella. A vote NOT to Impeach would be a
serious threat to National Security allowing a felonious fraud to continue to
usurp the Presidency unabated.

IF and only IF Obama were undoubtedly the Bona-Fides
POTUS should Impeachment be the proper forum to address Obama?s crimes. Insofar
as Obama?s very authority to BE President is in grave question,THAT issue MUST
be decided BEFORE Impeachment could or should even be
considered.

Obama,in light of the prima facie evidence against him
can be arrested pursuant to already formally registered Charges against him for
election fraud and treason as well as using multiple SSNs, inter alia. He can be
arrested by ANY law enforcement officer having Jurisdiction in DC and the USDC
for the District of DC has Jurisdiction. Ronald Machen, US Attorney for the USDC
District of DC, has known about the Charges against Obama for years
now.

Robert C. Laity

Founding President,

Society for the Preservation
of Democracy and Human Rights.?????-Reposted with the permission of Greg
Rogers, Editor-in-Chief of Australia
News.

? 2011, The Post &
Email. All rights reserved
internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright
restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the
left margin.

Obama eligibility

Co-opting of The Presidential Eligibility Assurance
Act

Again, the corporate media is deliberately silent to the
level of complicity on the threats, intimidation and even legislative blackmail
that is currently taking place over the issue of states? rights and the U.S.
Constitution. Specifically being referenced are the efforts of individual
states to pass a Presidential Eligibility Assurance Act, or legislation that
would allow each state to pass legislation verifying the eligibility of a
presidential candidate under Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S.
Constitution.

As most people know and despite demonstrably false
assertions to the contrary, Obama has failed to provide proof of eligibility to
occupy the White House.
Furthermore, those responsible for vetting his credentials and filing the
necessary documents to allow him to be included on the ballot have failed to be
held accountable for their inaction.

Another common yet fallacious argument, one that appears
to be boldly embraced by Republicans and the conservative right, is that the
issue of constitutional eligibility is nothing more than a diversion from the
more important issues of the day. To those who embrace that view, we will ask
nothing more than ?since when is treason a diversion?? which is an excellent
article authored by Neill Turner that can be read here.

As heard last Saturday live on CFP Radio, The
Hagmann-McLeod Report (available for download here),?
Attorney Mario
Apuzzo and retired U.S. military
commander Charles
Kerchner detailed the reasons that
Barack Hussein Obama failed to provide the necessary documents to confirm his
eligibility under the U.S. Constitution. Equally important, they further
detailed events that are currently taking place behind the scenes to derail
efforts that would effectively delay or even halt the states? efforts to pass
such legislation so it is not effective for the next presidential election in
2012.

Before interviewing Attorney Apuzzo and Commander
Kerchner, it was our understanding that a number of U.S. states were at various
levels of passing legislation that would put the issue of presidential
eligibility to rest forever as of the 2012 election. On its face, that assertion
appeared to be true, especially if one has listened to the media, high profile
conservative talk show hosts and others even in the alternative media.
Conservative divas such as Sarah Palin, conservative talking heads who appeared
at CPAC, Republican lawmakers and others have made a public showing of openly
endorsing such legislation. As such, it appeared that the eligibility matter
would be cleared up by 2012, putting the U.S. back on track with the federal
eligibility requirements defined in the
U.S. Constitution.

Our investigation and the findings by Messrs. Apuzzo and
Kerchner, however, have confirmed that the American people have been lied to
again. The efforts at the state levels have been significantly co-opted, and
those who have openly endorsed such legislation appear to be involved in a
high-stakes shell game designed to fool the American public. Most troubling is
that it is the very people who conservatives and constitutionalists have placed
their faith are those who are the operators of the shell
game.

Georgia: the current legislative battlefield

As detailed by Messrs. Apuzzo and Kerchner, the most
obvious example of this travesty of law is illustrated in the state of Georgia,
where we, as Americans, have less than 36 hours to put pressure on the
legislators to do the right thing by the U.S. Constitution. As detailed by
Messrs. Apuzzo and Kerchner,? Georgia HB 401, The
Presidential Eligibility Assurance Act is deliberately and purposely being
stalled in committee by the Georgia House of Representatives by lack of full backing by the Republican
Speaker of the House David Ralston.

Co-Sponsor of the Georgia Proof-of-Eligibility Law,
Representative Sean Jerguson has laid the unvarnished truth out to the American
people in an interview last week about the media?s distortion of the bill. He
slams the media for spinning the truth or only offering half-truths about the
bill. The video of this March 7, 2011 interview can be accessed
here and provides an
excellent glimpse into what has been going on behind the scenes pertaining to
this bill.

The Devil Went Down to Georgia

To paraphrase a 1979 song performed by the Charlie
Daniels Band, it would appear that ?the Devil went down to Georgia? and is
prepared to make a deal for souls out of desperation.? Investigation finds that
the reference to the song is not too far off, if one considers team Obama and
those who downplay or disregard the immediate importance of this constitutional
issue as the Devil, while fiddle player Johnny represents those who understand
and care about the rule of law.

Tomorrow, failing sufficient objection on the part of
the American people, the bill will either die in the relevant house committee or
be modified and moved out of committee with an effective date of 2013, after the
2012 election cycle. This will effectively permit Barack Hussein Obama and
others to circumvent legal compliance with Article II, Section 1 of our U.S.
Constitution and not require him or any other ballot member to prove eligibility
as a ?natural born Citizen of the United States.?

If this does indeed happen, certain conservatives,
Republicans, and those who claim to be on the side of the rule of law can claim
that they have supported the efforts of those of us who want this matter
resolved before the 2012 election.

We can expect such behavior by Progressives and others
who are unconcerned about constitutional issues, but we must not be fooled by
individuals and groups who claim to be for the rule of law but have acquiesced
to the extent that they can claim they are on the side of right when, in fact,
they are not. Unlike the 1979 song, however, that is much like Johnny
impressively playing the fiddle, but only for show and not to win, deceiving his
audience and losing the golden fiddle. We must not allow that to
happen.

What is immediately needed

We ask that you immediately contact Georgia Speaker of
the House David Ralston by telephone or
facsimile, or even in person - not by e-mail or mail, and respectfully demand
that HB 401 is passed to take effect for the 2012 election.? We also suggest
contacting the governor of Georgia by telephone to request that he openly call
for its adoption in committee and movement to the full Georgia House for passing
and adoption for the 2012 election cycle.

Copyright ? Canada Free PressDouglas Hagmann,
founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network,
and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his
investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public
awareness through his website.

Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30
years experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also
worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh,
Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck.

As did most of us, I first heard of Theresa Cao when she
made her now famous (some say infamous) statement in the House of
Representatives? chamber on 6 January 2011 during a formal reading of the US
Constitution. As Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) read the Constitutional requirements
for a United States president, Theresa called out from the gallery ?except
Obama, except Obama, help us, Jesus! My name is Theresa.? Unlike what had
occurred previously with the Marxist-Leninist Left-wing group Code Pink and
Cindy Sheehan merely being escorted out of the chamber when they severely
disrupted sessions in the House of Representatives, Theresa Cao was arrested
(for her one sentence statement--and no, she wasn?t ?chanting? as one of the
leftist news services has written. In other words, leftists can protest in
Congressional chamber all they want but, one conservative (and Christian?)
person who dares to question the illegal president will be arrested.

Note: This IS one of the signs of a dictatorship, folks.
And please bear in mind that decorated Medical Doctor and [now] former LTC Terry
Lakin was placed into and still remains in prison for questioning Obama?s
eligibility and, therefore, the legality of his commands.

Theresa has already been forced to appear in court for
her transgression (aka ?Free Speech?) of questioning Obama?s eligibility and
has, apparently, been told to accept a plea-bargain punishment?or else. She has
already had her first appearance in court, has been charged with [disruption of
Congress] ?unlawful conduct? (free speech is no longer allowed under the
increasingly lawless Obama regime) and her next appearance is scheduled for 15
March 2011. Note: Maj. General Paul E. Vallely (Ret) recently called Theresa ?a
brave woman. A true patriot.?

We are urging Americans to appear on the sidewalk,
Tuesday 15 March, in front of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
Criminal Division, 500 Indiana Ave. N.W. in Washington, D.C. by at least
8:30-9:00 a.m. to support Theresa, enter the courtroom and to bear witness to
what occurs. This a fight for us all and Theresa implores us to be there.

Through a series of events, Theresa contacted me and the
following is a brief interview of this courageous lady.

The Interview

Sher: Theresa, it?s been good getting to know you over
the past few days. What you are now fighting is a government regime that appears
to become more dictatorial every day. Although multiple US Constitutional issues
are in motion, this seems to predominantly be an issue of First Amendment Free
Speech rights. I understand that after your first court appearance your
court-appointed attorney April Downs told you to take a plea deal. Can you tell
the readers how Ms. Downs presented it to you?

Theresa: On February 8, 2011, when Judge Marisa Demeo,
appointed April L. Downs as my court appointed Public Defender, she suggested I
pursue a "Stet" Docket. I, at that time, indicated to her that I would like to
pursue my case based on my Constitutional rights. It turns out that a "Stet"
Docket and the "FTO" (AKA First Time Offender) were new Plea Deals from the
Prosecutor's Office--offered on March 7, 2011 at my 10:30am appointment with
Attorney Downs.

In essence, Attorney Downs stated in both instances,
that these Plea Deals would not implicate my case as "Guilty" but would be
considered "Not Guilty"; but it would include 40 hours of community service, and
6-9-12 months of probation, with my promise of ?Good Behavior.? Last but, not
least I would NOT be able to speak about my Constitutional rights; specifically,
the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth Amendment rights, aka. the Bill of Rights.

Attorney Downs, wanted me to believe that the "FTO" was
different from the "Stet" Docket. I had to connect the dots, so to speak, after
the fact; after my appointment with her on March 7, 2011. Thus there is a
question of fraud and collusion with the Prosecutor and the Judge, to threaten
to "Shut [me] Up" and thereby not pursue my Constitutional rights--the Supreme
Law of the Land--and not just in theory, but as the basis of our Republic form
of Government.

This specific example of corruption and fraud, being one
of a few other examples that implicates Attorney Downs, is an integral part of
the corrupted judicial system. I shall offer other examples of Attorney Down's
collusion with the anti-Constitutional system, below.

Sher: Considering the fact that Marxist Code Pink and
Cindy Sheehan have disrupted the US House of Representatives on multiple
occasions--with only escorts out of the building--how shocked were you that you
seemed to be targeted and singled out for arrest?

Theresa: Here are the other examples of Attorney Down's
collusion with the anti-Constitutional system. I asked Attorney Down's
specifically to research what has taken place with Code Pink at our initial
meeting on February 8, 2011, giving her over one month to find out information
for me. But, she did not do her job. Her response to my following up with her on
this detail was "ho humming" and beating around the bush--until she said
something to the effect that she didn't recall that question. Then she later
remembered that I did ask her and responded asking how can she find out any
information, if there were no arrests made?! She did not do her job?period. So,
to date, I still have to do some research on this specific issue.

I will be pursuing this matter of "Arrest", in both my
"Motion to Dismiss" as well as preparing for my Court Trial--should that be the
direction of my Criminal Misdemeanor case.

Sher: You said you plan to go to trial but, that the
judicial system is warning you to take their plea deal--which strongly appears
to be a direct infringement upon your free speech. How do you plan to proceed?

Theresa: Plan One: I plan to file a "Motion to Dismiss"
based on my Constitutional rights, on Monday, March 14, 2011, the day before my
court hearing date scheduled for the following day, March 15, 2011.

The reason for this late date for filing the "Motion to
Dismiss" was due to the fact that Attorney April L. Downs, the Public Defender
assigned to me by Obama's court appointed Judge Marisa Demeo, stated that I
could not file the stated Motion, prior to my court hearing.

One of two of my advisers/sources, Margy and Jack Flynn,
from the website americancitizensoftheconstitution.com, although not attorneys
per se, but who are students of the Constitution of the United States, have
advised me that I can file for the Motion prior to the court date. It should be
noted that my advisors did bring to my attention [to the fact] that I could file
the Motion prior to my court hearing, which was prior to my meeting with
Attorney Downs earlier this week on March 7, 2011. The Flynn's have been key
instruments in assisting me with learning about my inherent, God-given
Constitutional rights.

My other sources/advisers, come from the website
avoiceforchildren.com; Pamela & Will Gaston, who penned the book "Sui Juris:
The Truth in Record, A Process For the People to Access the Court", is an
essential resource, for all American Citizens who are currently involved in the
corrupted U.S. Court system, to stand upon their unalienable, God-given,
Constitutional rights.

Pamela & Will Gaston have paid a very high price
(which Pamela paid with her life, while serving prison time), paving the way, to
teach us, how to defend ourselves, without the corrupted attorneys, who
supposedly are on our side; the entire judicial system is pursuing enacting
Shariah law in place of the Constitution of the U.S., which is current news as
of two weeks ago. And since December 2008, the Treasury Dept. of the U.S. has
taught Shariah Law 101 and installed Shariah Laws into our Constitutional
system.

Please tell your family and friends, and all American
Citizens everywhere of these two noted above sources of mine, by which we can
win, case by case, against this prevailing wicked and corrupt system. We must be
brave and courageous! We can no longer be subservient to the New World Order
system! We must stand and defend our own cases, without so-called attorneys, if
they will not defend the Supreme Law of the Land!

"We the People" must actively defend our Constitutional
rights and not back down to the corrupted system that utilizes the
"Attorneys-Judge-Bar Association?s" corrupted, anti-Constitutional system to
"terrorize" defendants into taking a "Plea Deal;" so that we do not pursue our
cases based on the Supreme Law of the Land--the Constitution of the United
States. "Plea Deals", forces the American people, to admit "Guilt", thus succumb
to the pretentious, anti-Constitutional rights; when in fact the judicial system
has infringed upon our unalienable, God-given Constitutional rights.

Plan Two: Dismiss Attorney April L. Downs, from
my case because she has not done her homework for my case, has misled me
concerning my options (given by the Prosecutors office) and is still indicating
that I should take the FTO [First Time Offender] offer. Other details, also,
lead me to believe that she does not want to defend me based on my
Constitutional rights; even though she says I still have the final choice by
Tuesday, March 15, 2011, to decide the direction of the case.

I may request that Judge Marisa Demeo assign me another
court-appointed Public Defender due to the negligence of Attorney April L.
Downs. I am not definite on this matter; I may just want to have a trial
scheduled.

Plan Three: If Judge Marisa Demeo refuses to
abide by the Constitution of the U.S. and the Bill of Rights, by not dismissing
my Criminal Misdemeanor Charge/Case, then I will ask for a Trial by Jury based
on Fourth, Fifth & Sixth Amendment.

Sher: Thanks so much, Theresa, and I?m hoping that as
many people as possible show up at the courthouse to support you this tomorrow.

Again, the address is Superior Court of the District of
Columbia Criminal Division, 500 Indiana Ave. N.W. in Washington, D.C. and we
recommend showing up Tuesday 15 March no later than 8:30-9:00 a.m.

Sher Zieve is an author and political commentator.
Zieve's op-ed columns are widely carried by multiple internet journals and
sites, and she also writes hard news. Her columns have also appeared in The
Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Sacramento Sun, in international news publications,
and on multiple university websites. Sher is also a guest on multiple national
radio shows.

Further, the Constitutionalists have also proven that
there has been coordinated activity to defraud the American public among
government agencies, the media, universities across the United States, private
citizens, the judiciary, banks and corporations.? They have aided and abetted
the destruction of the United States through the installation of a
foreign usurper who is implementing a foreign agenda.? It has been a long time
in the making, but the ?mechanics? of the usurpation have names attached to
them.

This fact will never go away, and neither will those of
us who know and care about the United States of America.? Obama?s fundamental
Constitutional ineligibility remains his inconvenient, untimely, and ugly
truth.

?The flat earth eligibility
deniers, ?conservatives? in traitors clothes?all communists by proxy?will have
to answer to their maker, and will answer to the American
people.

I laugh when I think of how young these idiots are?Dowd, Cooper, Rove, Brazille,? O?Reilly, so many others.?
They have decades ahead where they will be the scorn of history, of
their children and neighbors, of the world? for their role in this
deception.

Game over for them.

Another Crossing

As expected, the
corrupt Supreme Court dismissed
Hollister without comment, and
without the recusal of? Sotomayor and Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts showed
his spineless nature by failing to insist on the recusal, and Sotomayor and
Kagan exhibited their typical lack of judicial integrity.

The Supreme Court must not?and will not? be allowed to
stand in the shadows having ducked their constitutional responsibility to hear
this, and the other eligibility cases.? Sotomayor and Kagan should be
impeached.

We now see what a monster of a government we have on our
hands, and it is an interesting crossing point.? Here are some questions that I
am pondering.

It is clear that this centralized government?and
those who have hijacked it?cannot, and will not last. Our real form of
government has been so perverted by illegal amendments wrought by scoundrels
that only purge of these amendments and individuals, plus a long-term effort,
will revive the Republic at the federal government
level.

Do we enable its fall by withholding all federal
tax payments, holding? strikes, becoming a 1099 employees, just
standing down?? Do we push them over the edge on our
terms?

Is it time to plan the underground railway to
restoration of the Republic, or the creation of the Second American
Republic?

No matter what the hype, the NWO will not be able to
take this country without a big ass fight.? The obots can hide in the FEMA camps
while the grown ups take out the NWO.

So?the Tree of Liberty is dying and needs water.? At the
very least we can all start to say ?no? in our own way, beginning right
now.

During a debate
(see pg. 2791) regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been
incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of
Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen.? Representative
Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:

?As to the question of citizenship I am
willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United
States.? That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States
there is not room for the shadow of a doubt.? He was born of naturalized
parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the
express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to
all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.? (The term ?to-day?, as used by Bingham, means ?to date?.? Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)

Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a ?natural-born citizen? by citing two factors ? born of citizen parents in the US.

John Bingham,
aka ?father of the 14th Amendment?, was an abolitionist congressman
from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln?s assassins.? Ten years earlier, he
stated on the House floor:

?All from other lands, who by the terms of
[congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become
naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other
persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no
other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no
exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what
is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.? (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:

?Every human being born within the
jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any
foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a
natural born citizen.? (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor
of the House.? If you read the Congressional Globe to study these
debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly
contested.? However, Bingham?s definition of ?natural born citizen?
(born of citizen parents in the US) was never challenged on the floor of the House.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court?s holding in Wong Kim Ark did not
address Presidential eligibility, nor did it define ?natural born
citizen?.? It simply clarified who was a ?citizen?.? Had the framers of
the 14th Amendment sought to define nbc, they would have used the words
?natural born? in the Amendment.? But they didn?t.

Do not allow the opposition to state this definition as ?Vattel?s definition?.? Challenge that tactic every time.? Vattel didn?t make it up.? His text on the law of nations compiled known existing law.? Vattel was not a legislator.

It is proper to say, with regard to US Constitutional law,
that this was the House definition as stated on the floor by
Representative Bingham.? And this definition was never opposed on the floor.? And that is exactly where it should have been opposed if it were not the truth.

Debate upon issues of Constitutional law such as this belong on the
House floor.? And when an issue this important comes before the nation
on the floor of? ?the people?s House?, and the issue is not challenged by any Representative of the people,
then it?s certainly proper to infer that the House of Representatives,
as a whole, agreed with that definition.? After all, our nation is
governed by debate on the floor of the House.? But there never was
debate on this issue because it was a proper statement of Constitutional
law.

The definition of natural born citizen as stated on the House floor = born in the US to parents who are citizens.?
It?s not like those cats were incapable of correcting each other?s
mistakes.? Since no Supreme Court case ever stated a different
definition of ?natural born citizen?, and no Represenative ever
challenged Bingham on this point, the House definition stands and
officially remains unchallenged as of today.? If the House wants to
change this definition, let them bring the issue to the floor now and
properly debate it.

Until then, call it the House of Representatives definition
as offered by the father of the 14th Amendment who was never challenged
upon it.

Don?t let history be rewritten by propagandists.? The evidence is
mounting on a daily basis that the current Commander In Chief is not
eligible to hold the office of President.? You have a voice.? You have
freedom of speech.? You have access to your federal and state
representatives.

The courts don?t want to hear from you.

So find someone who must to listen to you and be heard.? The
Constitution cannot survive unless you breath life into it. We are
responsible to future generations.? Do something with that
responsibility.? Use the law.? Obey the law.? Respect the law.? Fight
for the law.

by Leo Donofrio, Esq.? (hat tip to my main researcher who shall remain anonymous for now?)

Larry- an online Certification of Live Birth is NOT an original 1961 birth certificate- it is computer-generated & laser-printed- do you understand that there is an "underlying" document (see Congressman Ted Poe's CNN interview on Lou Dobbs' show- a former judge who understands standards of evidence). If you had read the WesternJournalismCenter's intelligence officer's report (www.safeguardourconstitution.com) about the types of HI birth certificates-- you might understand the deception to which you've fallen prey. Please read this as well for background: http://www.aim.org/guest-column/how-the-media-lied-about-obamas-birth-records

The Dept of Homelands in HI until June 2009, when its website was altered-- expressed a clear preference for an "original birth certificate"-- it deemed the COLB "insufficient" for its purposes-- notably, unlike standard hospital birth records, the Obama COLB lacks a hospital and attending physician's signature. Did you know there is not a single eyewitness for this birth? If you have children, you could probably easily name a dozen people who remembered your bringing your child home from the hospital- neighbors who came by or brought a casserole, close friends-- your ob/gyn who would have done pre-natal and post-natal certs, etc. BUT NOT A SINGLE EYEWITNESS to Ann Dunham being on Oahu in August 1961?!

Meanwhile, several Kenyans (inc. prominent ones like Cabinet Minister James Orengo and AMB Peter Ogego) declare Obama born in Kenya-- have you interviewed them or tried to make contact? Minister Orengo said this on the floor of the Kenyan Parliament last March. Do you think it's racist to ignore these prominent Kenyans? If a European Parliamentarian said Obama was born in Kenya, would you believe him/her?

There were many conservatives clinging to Richard Nixon as he was being pulled from office b/c of a sweeping cover-up-- of a crime he didn't commit. This cover-up extends directly to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue- as these are ALL Obama's records under lock and key. Reporters should avoid playing a complicit role in this cover-up. We have a "right to know" in our democratic society which is what lies behind statutes like FOIA, FACA & other "sunshine" laws (that journalists typically supported as it kept our government honest, accountable, and free from corruption)- Americans don't like politicians who believe they can keep secrets- and act as if they are above the law. We need to know if Obama conforms to the Constitution's Article II, Section 1, Clause 5-- or not. Didn't Obama PLEDGE transparency?

So that you aren't confused over the birth announcements in the papers- there WAS an original birth record filed in 1961-- but as the WJC investigator's report indicates, that record could be as flimsy or non-probative as a parental statement- mailed in-- it could even be Ann Dunham's signature signed by one of the grandparents (but that would automatically have prompted those newspaper announcements per agreement then between vital records & the two HI papers)- logically, if that record PROVED a birth in Hawaii- why wouldn't Obama release it? There must be a concern that it would not withstand forensics scrutiny.

The Obama COLB# is higher than that of the Nordyke twins' #s- even though they were born a day later, at Kapi'olani. Obama's camp gave out TWO different hospital names- first Queens Medical Center, then Kapi'olani-- yet the hospitals won't confirm his birth there. Sequencing of records is important in detecting fraud-- perhaps you have a ready answer for this out-of-sequence number? I'd like to hear any theories you might have- since there is NO EVIDENCE available (i.e. an original birth certificate) to make a conclusive determination that Obama is "natural born" or not- if born in Kenya as Sarah Obama claims, Obama was born a British subject b/c Ann Dunham would not have met age/residency requirements to convey U.S. citizenship to her son- born on foreign soil to a foreign father- he would have failed the "natural born" test. Maybe that explains why all his records are sealed? You also seemed to have ignored GOV Abercrombie's publicized December hunt for something to placate doubters like me (this of course was after we'd all been lied to about the COLB being an original birth certificate-- so what else did he plan to release?- was he admitting that the original record remains concealed?)-- and then he fired the Health Director who was reportedly a straight-up guy!- the word in Hawaii is that Abercrombie did this to permit his own staff access to Obama's file-- but again, nothing was released-- do you find this in the least bit odd?

Monday, March 7, 2011

The Colonel Gregory Hollister v. Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama, et al, Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed in the United States Supreme Court was denied without comment and again with no recusal from jUstice Sotomayor and jUstice Kagan. SCOTUS Order here and embedded below. Previous reports on Colonel Hollister can be viewed here, here, here, here, here, here and here. [image source]

Usually, an alteration of the Foreign Affairs Manual would only be warranted if the law had been changed or clarified by the Supreme Court or by a statute.? But there was no official change in the law.? The manual was simply scrubbed? along with the Constitution.

Leo Donofrio

??

By now, readers of this blog should be more than familiar with the tainted holding of the US Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark.? In that case, the Supreme Court held:

?The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.?

This holding has been the subject of enormous dispute in the United States.? The ?holding?, which is controlling US law, contradicts much of the ?dicta?, which is not considered legal precedent.? While the dicta makes it appear as if Justice Gray believed all persons born on US soil (except children of foreign dignitaries or enemies of the US) were US citizens under the 14th Amendment, the actual holding of the court is limited to ?the single question? of whether the children of aliens who have a ?permanent domicil and residence in the United States? are 14th Amendment citizens.

The holding does not specifically grant 14th Amendment citizenship to persons born in the US of illegal aliens, or even of those here temporarily (tourists and students).? Numerous legislative attempts have been made on both sides of the Congressional aisle ? as well as in a multitude of? States ? to clarify this holding by statute as to the children of illegal immigrants (aka ?anchor babies?).

Up until August 20, 2009, the US State Department?s Foreign Affairs Manual stated ? with regard to the holding in Wong Kim Ark ? in 7 FAM 1116.2-1(c):

c. Pursuant to this ruling, it has been considered that:

(1) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally;

This was the language used by both the Clinton and Bush administrations from 1995 through August 20, 2009 in the Foreign Affairs Manual.? Please note that the words ?considered? and ?generally? are in italics placed by the State Department.? Such italics emphasize that the practice stated above has never been clarified as law, so it is simply ?considered? to be the law.

On this point, the Foreign Affairs Manual had been a rational document in that it reflected the true state of affairs.? It stated the common ?interpretation?, but it refrained from listing what was ?considered? as if it was actually ?the law?.? Such rationality was good enough for both the Clinton and Bush administrations? but not for the Obama administration.? This disrespect for prior administrations and law must be part of the CHANGE promised in his campaign.

The link provided above (attached to the Date of August 17, 2009), refers to a snapshot taken of this section of the manual by the Way Back Machine for 2009 (at the wonderful Internet Archive) on August 17, 2009.? If you look into the actual URL link, it shows the date it was taken which corresponds with the calendar of snapshots.? At the top of that page, you will see -? ?(TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)? ? which informs you that the page had read this way since 1995.

The next date listing a snapshot on the calendar of snapshots is August 30, 2009 .? And this is the first snapshot which contains the current ? scrubbed ? edition of the Foreign Affairs Manual, which ? with regard to the holding in Wong Kim Ark ? states:

d. ?Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States?: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth.

That is a vastly different statement.? The rational discussion of the two prior administrations was replaced by the desperate (to protect) Obama administration on August 21, 2009.? While the prior edition of the manual went only so far as to state that persons born to illegal immigrant parents on US soil were ?considered? to be US citizens, Obama?s scrubbed edition has struck the limited holding of Wong Kim Ark and replaced it with his own opinion which unequivocally declares the children of illegal immigrants (as well as tourists and students) to be 14th Amendment citizens.

This scrubbing took place shortly after we discovered Justice Gray had been appointed to the Supreme Court by a British subject usurper named Chester Arthur.

This reeks of self-serving propaganda since Gray?s limited ?holding? only applied to those ?permanently domiciled? here (like President Arthur?s father, a British subject alien at the time of Arthur?s birth).? The holding in Wong Kim Ark did not cover children born in the US of persons who were only here temporarily such as Obama?s father.? Hence, the need for scrub a dub dub dub.

Usually, an alteration of the Foreign Affairs Manual would only be warranted if the law had been changed or clarified by the Supreme Court or by a statute.? But there was no official change in the law.? The manual was simply scrubbed? along with the Constitution.

Those who argue that the United States has no obligation
to recognize and respect dual nationality ? as to American citizens ? have been
unequivocally proved wrong by official correspondence between former Secretary
of State Robert Lansing (who served from 1905-1920) and former Senator Henry
Cabot Lodge.? ?

The opinion of the State department was
published in The
American Journal of International Law, Volume 9.? We shall begin with the
factual background to this official inquiry:

?MY DEAR SENATOR LODGE:? I have received your letter
of June 5, 1915, in reply to my letter of June 2, concerning the detention in
Italy for military service of Ugo Da Prato, who was born in Boston, August 25,
1895, and went to Italy in 1912 to study architecture, and whose father, Antonio
Da Prato, a native of Italy, obtained naturalization, as a citizen of this
country in the District Court of the United States at Boston, March 19, 1892;
that is, before the son?s birth?

As Ugo Da Prato was born in this country after his
father had obtained naturalization as a citizen of the United States, it does
not appear that he can be considered an Italian subject under Italian law, and I
have no doubt he will be released.?

Please take notice of two crucial facts.? First, the
State Department was particularly concerned that the father had naturalized
before the son was born.? Second, the State Department also took
official notice of the nationality laws of Italy as a determining factor.? Such
recognition is necessary for many reasons, the least of which is the avoidance
of diplomatic conflicts.

The correspondence between Lansing and Lodge provides a
textbook example perfectly tailored to educate our nation on this
issue.

In that correspondence (which I
encourage you to read in full), Lansing refers to Article 11 of the Italian
Civil Code.? Article 11 stated that Italian subjects who naturalize in a foreign
nation forfeit Italian citizenship.

Lansing?s correspondence also considers Article 12 which
demanded that all former Italian citizens ? who forfeited citizenship under
Article 11 ? were still required to serve in the Italian
military.

As to Article 12, Lansing informed Lodge it would not be
applicable to the son, since the son had been born after the father had
naturalized in America.? Therefore, according to Italian law, the son had never
been an Italian citizen, so Italy could not claim him.

Lansing stressed that the son had been born
after the father naturalized as a US citizen.? Had the son been born
before the father was naturalized, Italian law would have required the
son to serve in the military.? But since the son was born to a US Citizen in the
US, Lansing assured Lodge of the son?s eventual release from
custody.

Lansing?s confidence that the son would be released from
custody is based upon his undeniable status as a natural born citizen of the US,
whereas persons born to alien fathers in the US are susceptible to such custody
by foreign nations.? In my opinion, which I believe to be the same as the
framers, no person deemed by the US State Department to owe direct allegiance to
another nation should ever be eligible to the office of
President.

As Secretary Lansing?s letter clearly indicates, had the
son been born before his father naturalized, Italy could require him to
serve in the military (and bear arms against the US). ? And there would have been nothing the US
could do about it.? This is a perfect example of why the US Commander In
Chief should never have possessed dual allegiance.? Such a state of affairs is
completely unnatural to allegiance and to the oath of
office.

Chester Arthur?s father was naturalized fourteen years
after Chester was born.? Therefore, Arthur would have been officially recognized
as a British subject by the State Department had they known of this
fact.

Obama?s father never became, or even applied for, US
citizenship.? Furthermore, Obama has admitted that his birth status was
?governed by? the laws of the United Kingdom.? Therefore, both Obama and Arthur,
at the time of their births, according to the State Department, owed dual
allegiance to the US and to the British monarch.

THE DISEASE OF DUAL ALLEGIANCE

Both Obama and Arthur owed allegiance to the British
monarchy at the time of their births.? Recognition and respect for that
allegiance has always been the official policy of the US State Department.? But
Senator Lodge was not aware of that policy.? He was in a misguided state of
disbelief that any person could have dual nationality.? Here is what Lodge wrote
to Secretary Lansing:

?I note what you say in regard to the Italian law
which obviously does not apply to young Da Prato, but, speaking generally I can
not assent for a moment to the proposition that such a thing as dual citizenship
is possible.? As you well know, we constituted ourselves as champions against
the doctrine of indefeasible allegiance and have succeeded in compelling the
acceptance of our view by all the nations with the exception, I think, of Russia
and Turkey.? The abandonment of indefeasible allegiance is in itself the
establishment of the principle that there can be no such thing as dual
citizenship, either in whole or in part, and to attempt to retain the right over
a boy, born in this country of parents not naturalized? which is not the case
with Da Prato? for military service in the country of origin of the parents is
absurd on its face and is something to which we should never assent for a
moment?

Italy *? *? *? has no possible claim on the children
of Italian parents, not naturalized, born in this country, especially if they
have exercised all the rights of citizenship as they are entitled to do under
the 14th amendment to the Constitution.? Such a child has never been an Italian
subject for one minute.? Italy has no more claim on him than she has on one of
my children or one of yours??

?As this general subject has been the cause of
considerable comment I venture to discuss the matter at some
length.

Dual nationality is not a theory or doctrine promulgated
by the Department, but is the unavoidable result of the conflicting laws of
different countries? The status of a person who is born a citizen of one country
under the jus soli and a citizen of another country under the jus
sanguinis is commonly termed dual nationality.? Whether or not this term is
considered apt, the fact remains that many persons are born citizens or subjects
of two countries under their respective laws?

?Also, a person born in the United States of Italian
parents is born a citizen of the United States under the law of this country,
and a subject of Italy under the law of Italy.? The fact of dual nationality has
been recognized by the Department for many years.? Secretary of State Fish in a
report to the President dated August 25, 1875, said:

??Such children are born
to a double character.? The citizenship of the father is that of the child so
far as the laws of the country of which the father is a citizen are concerned
and within the jurisdiction of that country; but the child, from the
circumstances of his birth, may acquire rights and owes another fealty besides
that which attaches to the father.? (Moore?s International Law Digest, Volume
III, page 520.)?

?I desire further to call
your attention to the following statement in the report of the citizenship board
which was appointed during the administration of President Roosevelt? which
report was forwarded to the Speaker of the House of Representatives by Secretary
of State Elihu Root, with a letter of approval and commendation dated December
18 1906:

?Inasmuch as our
Government declares that all persons born in the United States are citizens of
the United States, and also recognizes, as well as adopts, on its own part, the
rule that children of citizens resident abroad are citizens of the country to
which the parents owe allegiance there arises as will be seen a conflict of
citizenship spoken of usually as dual allegiance.? House Document No. 326, 59th
Congress, 2d session, page 74.? ?

Lansing slams the point home ? which is agreed upon by
the three former Secretaries of State ? that the true problem is dual
allegiance (aka ?dual fealty?).

For such a condition to exist as to the Commander In
Chief of the US Armed Forces is total blasphemy to the oath of office required
of the President.? Such a condition is certainly not natural to the
concept of allegiance.

But most important
in quashing the favored argument of Obama ineligibility denialists is the
statement by Secretary Root which confirms that ? not only does the US
recognize dual nationality ? we have ?adopted? it as the law of our own
country.

Furthermore, Lansing felt it necessary to stress again
the crucial importance of whether the child was born after
naturalization of the father:

?For the reasons mentioned above, it is obviously
important for the Department in dealing with the case of a person who was born
in this country and had a father of Italian birth, to ascertain whether his
father had previously acquired naturalization as a citizen of the United
States.? This is especially important when it is a case, such as that which you
have presented, of a person who has not yet reached his
majority.?

Because the United States has adopted the position that
we shall abide by foreign nationality laws as to persons born with dual
allegiance, such a person may be apprehended in a foreign country and forced to
bear arms against the US.? And there is nothing the US can do, from a diplomatic
stand point, to force that person?s release.

Furthermore, no such person should ever desire
to be President, especially if that person is a Constitutional scholar.? It
should be obvious to such a person that they would be submitting the nation to a
Constitutional crisis.? A true statesman would spare the nation such a debacle
and perhaps be happy to serve his country as a Senator.

In conclusion, I shall reiterate that the US State
Department has ?always? recognized dual allegiance and has ?adopted? it under
law.? Anyone who argues otherwise is
either ignorant or lying.

??

by Leo Donofrio, Esq.? (?with a big hat tip to my
research team on this one.)

This entry was posted on
March 4, 2011 at 8:40 PM and is filed under Uncategorized . You can follow any responses to this entry through the
RSS 2.0 feed You can
skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

9 Responses to ?The State Department Has ?Always? Recognized And
Abided By Foreign Laws Concerning US Citizens Born With Dual?Nationality.?

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/74/74.US.496.htmlOn the 10th of February, 1855, Congress passed an act,1 entitled
?An act to secure the right of citizenship to children of citizens of the United
States, born out of the limits thereof,? the second section of which provides,
?that any woman, who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws,
married, or who shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be
deemed and taken to be a citizen.? (Repealed in 1922)

Of course we all know that Perkins v. Elg also deals
with this very subject.There is so much historical evidence that points to
Obama?s ineligibility that it can only be hidden by a complicit media, and a
disinterested citizenry.There is nothing that the Obama apologists can say
to refute this analysis, although we know that they stop at nothing, and the
hypnotized never lie.

Of course we all know that the dicta of Perkins v. Elg
also deals with this very subject.There is so much historical evidence that
points to Obama?s ineligibility that it can only be hidden by a complicit media,
and a disinterested citizenry.There is nothing that the Obama apologists can
say to refute this analysis, although we know that they stop at nothing, and the
hypnotized never lie.

BTW, I happy you re-opened your blog.Just giving
everyone a chance to review what others have discovered as well.
http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/Born with Dual Citizenship means NOT NBC. That has been
established here.Being born on British Soil of a British father, and late
registered (not accepted by the state) creates an entirely new concept of fraud.
The question then becomes how did Obama get on the ballot in states that have
laws to prevent it? Who is responsible to enforce said laws, and now that the
people of the United States have suffered, whom can this be brought to for
grievances? It seems that we the people no longer have rights under the
Constitution, as SCOTUS doesn?t give the people standing. Many parties can claim
harm by Obama?s policies, including the illegal ones (not enforcing or
selectively enforcing laws) and preventing oil exploration and energy
independence, or the Chrysler dealers for that matter. It seems as though SCOTUS
is saying that it will no longer review what is Constitutional, and therefore
has no point for continued existence!What a terrible price the DNC inflicted
upon the people of the United States for the election of one
POTUS.

Denver Post publisher:

Eligibility questions 'valid'

But Dean Singleton says it's not

something he wants to argue about

Posted: March 05, 20111:00 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh??2011?WorldNetDaily

?

Dean Singleton (Minnesota Public Radio)

The mainstream media have started covering what questioning reporters have characterized as one of the biggest stories in America, Barack Obama's eligibility, with a running dialogue by Chris Mathews on "Hardball," CNN polls on the controversy and now an endorsement from the publisher of the Denver Post that the questions are "valid."

However, publisher and owner Dean Singleton told radio talk show host Peter Boyles on his KHOW AM 630 program this week that it's not something he wants to argue about.

The dispute arose even before Obama was elected, when his status as a "natural born citizen" under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution was questioned. A multitude of lawsuits have sought unsuccessfully to clear the air, and there are several court cases that continue.

States have reacted by proposing legislation that would require a presidential candidate to provide documentation of his constitutional eligibility, and similar legislation even has been proposed in Congress.

Throughout, Obama has maintained a team of lawyers assigned to stamp out any case or challenge through which some of the documentation about his career might be revealed.

Boyles repeatedly has questioned Obama's eligibility based simply on the evidence available: the only document that Obama has released supporting his claim to a Hawaiian birth is a "Certification of Live Birth" that state law made available to those not born in the state.

Besides those who say he wasn't born in Hawaii and, therefore, is not eligible, a number of respected legal experts have argued that Obama admitted his ineligibility by confirming his father was a Kenyan national subject to the law of the U.K. at the time of his birth. They argue the Founders excluded dual citizens from being president.

"Asking the question is certainly fine to do," Singleton said during the discussion with Boyles about Obama's records and eligibility. "To me it's not the big issue. I know to you it is."

He continued, "The American people elected Barack Obama president. He's got two more years to go on his term. Probably four more after that. He was elected by the people, says he's a citizen, produced a certificate of live birth (sic). There's no proof he's not a citizen."

Singleton said he can criticize Obama's policies and actions "all day long," but the eligibility controversy is "just not something I want to argue about."

"There are questions," he admitted. "Why hasn't the president released his college transcripts. ? Those are valid questions, and probably should be asked until he does [answer].

"There's nothing wrong with asking the question over and over."

But he suggested most Americans are "not bothered" by the issue.

The recent CNN poll, however, showed that 58 percent of the respondents lack confidence in Obama's Hawaiian birth narrative. And Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie recently promised to search the state's archives and produce the birth records but later said he could not do that.

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh at the time addressed Abercromie's failure to produce evidence.

The case of Hollister v. Soetoro will be distributed for conference
on Friday, March 4, at the Supreme Court.? As you recall, the judge in this case
deemed Hollister?s case frivolous as Obama?s eligibility? had been ?twittered?
and thus resolved.? He dismissed the case and then threatened sanctions. What he
forgot to do was dismiss the case based on standing, as all the other judges
have.

John Hemenway, attorney for Hollister, directly challenged the Supreme Court
to uphold its duty to their oath in protecting the
Constitution.

A
veteran attorney who has pursued a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama?s
presidential eligibility since he was elected is telling the U.S. Supreme Court that
if its members continue to ?avoid? the dispute they effectively will ?destroy
the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system.?

Hemenway had submitted a
separate motion for the recusal of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan on the basis of
their financial interest in Obama?s continuance.? Apparently the
Supreme Court broke its own
rules, called it a ?request?, and
Sotomayor and Kagan were involved in the decision to deny Hollister?s petition
for writ? without comment in December 2010.

?Based on their failure to
follow their own procedures, Hollister?s case is now back before the Supremes in
conference?this time we hope without Sotomayor and Kagan.? There is no guarantee
whether they will indeed recuse themselves; if they do not, we have that much
more information to eventually impeach both Sotomayor and
Kagan.

We have not exaggerated in presenting the question
of the constitutional rule of law being at stake in this matter,? Hemenway wrote
in a petition for rehearing before the high court. ?A man has successfully run
for the office of president and has done so, it appears, with an awareness that he is not
eligible under the constitutional requirement for a person to be president.

?Despite a vigorous campaign that he has conducted
to make ?unthinkable? the very idea of raising the issue of his eligibility
under the Constitution to ?be? president the issue has not gone away,? Hemenway
said. (emphasis
added)

In perhaps the most incisive and challenging statement
of the petition, Hemenway states:

?To continue to avoid the issue will destroy the
constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system when it is under vigorous
assault as surely as if the conscious decision were made to cease preserving and
protecting our founding charter.?

The Supremes have no ?standing? issue to hide behind in
this case; if they choose to deny without comment they have indeed confirmed
that they made a ?conscious decision? to cease preserving and protecting our
founding charter?.

With eyes wide open, we will truly see if any of them
have the integrity to live up to their oath of office.